Eladio C. Tangan vs. The People of the Philippines
G. R. No. 73963, 5 November 1987
Facts:
Petitioner has been charged on July 1, 1985 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 136 in an information that described the commission of the crime of murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm (Criminal Case No. 17587). Before the scheduled date of arraignment on August 8, 1985, however, a new investigation of the case was made upon the request of the petitioner filed with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Pasig, Rizal. Subsequently, the offense charged was changed to homicide with the use of a licensed firearm. The petitioner entered a plea of “not guilty” to the amended charge of homicide. On September 18, 1985 a resolution was issued by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal finding that probable cause to hold petitioner for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions used in the commission of homicide as defined and punished under Section 1 of Presidential Decree 1866 and on the same date, information was filed in the same court indicting petitioner for the offense docketed as Criminal Case No. 13950.
On October 30, 1985 petitioner filed a motion to quash the information in the CC No. 13950 on the grounds that: (1) the information charges more than one offense which are separately punishable under existing laws; (2) the criminal action or liability of the accused has been extinguished; and (3) the accused is in jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted, of the offense charged.
The respondent judge issued a resolution denying the petitioner’s motion to quash on the following reasons: (1) the accused is not being charged with several distinct and separate offenses as defined in section 1 of PD 1866. The information simply describes the mode or manner by which the crime or the violation of the said law was committed which is allowed under the existing laws and jurisprudence. (2) The so-called inconsistent stand adopted by the prosecution is not a ground for quashing the information which is valid on its face. The information herein has the additional allegation that the accused has no permit for the firearm in question. A person may have a license to possess firearm, but may not necessarily have the needed permit to carry the same outside his home. The so-called inconsistency therefore, granting arguendo, that there is, goes on as far only as the matter of license is concerned, and does not cover the matter of permit. (3) The two cases pending before the RTC, albeit, based on the same act or incident, are entirely different offenses. One is for homicide penalized by the Revised Penal Code, and the other is for a violation under Section 1 of PD 1866-a special law.
Thus, the petition for certiorari was filed.
Issue:
Whether or not the lower court erred in denying the motion to quash?
Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that in order to raise a defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have been attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Moreover, a Legal Jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) a valid plea having been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.
In line with the first requisite, the SC ruled that there is no double jeopardy in the filing of the information for homicide in CC No. 17587 and the filing of information for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition used in the commission of homicide in CC No. 19350 for the simple reason that the first jeopardy had not yet attached.
In the second requisite, the Article 89 of the RPC enumerates the causes that totally extinguish criminal liability as follows: (1) the death of the convict; (2) service of sentence; (3) amnesty; (4) absolute pardon; (5) prescription of crime; (6) prescription of the penalty; and (7) the marriage of the offended woman. In the case at bar, it is evident that criminal liability in the homicide case has not been extinguished under any of the above-mentioned causes.
The SC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The requisites of double jeopardy have not been met.
Case digest by: Audey G. Principe, JD-1
No comments:
Post a Comment